JULM vs. QCLN

Last updated Jul 2, 2026

JULM (FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - July) and QCLN (First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - JULM is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by First Trust, while QCLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Clean Edge Green Energy Index. JULM is actively managed, while QCLN is passively managed. Over the past year, JULM returned 6.34% vs 82.32% for QCLN. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JULM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QCLN.

Performance

JULM vs. QCLN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - July (JULM) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JULM achieves a 3.02% return, which is significantly lower than QCLN's 33.80% return.

JULM

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 3.02%
• 6M: 3.02%
• 1Y: 6.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QCLN

• 1D: -2.72%
• 1M: -8.99%
• YTD: 33.80%
• 6M: 33.80%
• 1Y: 82.32%
• 3Y*: 5.75%
• 5Y*: -2.30%
• 10Y*: 15.96%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

JULM vs. QCLN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
JULM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - July	3.02%	6.91%	3.53%
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	33.80%	31.81%	-5.01%

Correlation

The correlation between JULM and QCLN is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 25, 2024	0.61

The correlation between JULM and QCLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

JULM vs. QCLN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

JULM

JULM Risk / Return Rank: 93
JULM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
JULM Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
JULM Omega Ratio Rank: 96
JULM Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
JULM Martin Ratio Rank: 95

QCLN

QCLN Risk / Return Rank: 77
QCLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
QCLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QCLN Omega Ratio Rank: 64
QCLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
QCLN Martin Ratio Rank: 85

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

JULM vs. QCLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - July (JULM) and First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	JULM	QCLN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.07	2.17	+0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.89	2.62	+2.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.70	1.33	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.06	5.05	-0.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.71	15.12	+8.59

JULM vs. QCLN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JULM Sharpe Ratio is 3.07, which is higher than the QCLN Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JULM and QCLN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

JULM vs. QCLN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JULM drawdown since its inception was -4.42%, smaller than the maximum QCLN drawdown of -76.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JULM and QCLN.

Drawdown Indicators

	JULM	QCLN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.42%	-76.18%	+71.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.57%	-16.40%	+14.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-56.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-69.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-30.88%	+30.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.32%	-43.38%	+43.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.27%	5.46%	-5.19%

Volatility

JULM vs. QCLN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - July (JULM) is 0.32%, while First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) has a volatility of 18.65%. This indicates that JULM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JULM	QCLN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.32%	18.65%	-18.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.68%	30.78%	-29.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07%	38.18%	-36.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.69%	38.64%	-34.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.69%	35.25%	-31.56%

JULM vs. QCLN - Expense Ratio Comparison

JULM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than QCLN's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

JULM vs. QCLN - Dividend Comparison

JULM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QCLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
JULM FT Vest U.S. Equity Max Buffer ETF - July	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QCLN First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund	0.14%	0.25%	0.87%	0.76%	0.33%	0.01%	0.30%	0.85%	1.03%	0.45%	1.24%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JULM and QCLN in my portfolio?

JULM and QCLN have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JULM or QCLN?

QCLN has higher volatility (18.65%) compared to JULM (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JULM dropped -4.42% vs QCLN's -76.18%.

Which ETF is better, JULM or QCLN?

On 1-year performance, QCLN leads with 82.32% vs 6.34% for JULM. On fees, QCLN is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, JULM has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JULM or QCLN?

Over the 1-year period, QCLN has performed better with a 82.32% return vs 6.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JULM or QCLN?

QCLN is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for JULM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JULM or QCLN?

QCLN has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for JULM.

What is the main difference between JULM and QCLN?

JULM is categorized as Defined Outcome, while QCLN is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for JULM and 0.59% for QCLN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JULM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 2.17), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.